W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org > July 2007

Re: moving forward!

From: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:15:50 -0400
Message-ID: <46A811E6.2090601@digitalbazaar.com>
To: RDFa force <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>

Karl Dubost wrote:
> Le 24 juil. 2007 à 02:18, Ivan Herman a écrit :
>> I remain by @instanceof

I would like to put my support behind @resourcetype instead of
@instanceof for the following reasons:

1. There is already @datatype in XSD[1]. There is already @type for
   basic XHTML elements like A and UL [2]. There is also @codetype in
   OBJECT[2], @valuetype in PARAM, @enctype in FORM. Shouldn't we
   be picking something that is harmonious with the XHTML spec?
2. RDF is difficult enough to grasp as is without having Computer
   Science speak and OO words thrown into the mix. True, it is explicit
   in what it is. Unfortunately, the meaning of @instanceof might only
   be clear to people trained in the art. We should assume that most
   people that are authoring web pages are not trained in the art (CS).
   Our choices for RDF names should reflect that realization.
3. rdf:type => resource (first word) + type (last word) = resourcetype
   It's not really a reason, but it does make sense and explaining
   that to somebody is pretty easy. The explanation behind @instanceof
   is a bit more complicated because one has to explain what an
   'instance' is to the person that is generating the HTML.

I think this really comes down to a question of usability and not
stomping on other name spaces. My preferences thus far:

1. @resourcetype
2. @instance
2. @instanceof

-- manu

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/dtds.html#a_dtd_XHTML-1.0-Strict
Received on Thursday, 26 July 2007 03:16:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:15:08 GMT